[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: New Peerage? (fwd)
Poster: James and Nancy Gilly <KatieMorag@worldnet.att.net>
>To: sca-east@world.std.com
>From: nostrand@pi.math.wsu.edu (Barbara Nostrand)
>cc: James and Nancy Gilly <KatieMorag@worldnet.att.net>,
> Karen Stegmeier <karen@addl.purdue.edu>, sca-equine@dnaco.net
>Subject: Re: New Peerage? (fwd)
>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 96 01:39:47 +0000
>
>Noble Cousins!
>
>James K. Wright has been circulating a proposal for a new peerage order.
>I believe that the specific proposal is flawed in several ways, and wish
>to respond to it in some detail. Unfortunately, I do not have the address
>for the Atlantian mailing list, so I will post my comments here.
>
>
>>>The Order of the Courtier: A Proposal
>
>Before going into the specific details of the proposal, I wish to note that
>the name chosen for the order is most inappropriate. Courtiers were a
>variety of kinds of people at court (who often did not hold specific office)
>which might have included members of a variety of orders. This would not
>have been the name of an order. Orders had names like: Bath, Garter,
>Golden Fleece, Hospitalier, Templar, etc. Orders typically took their names
>from either their token of membership, a feature of initiation, a classic
>reference or from the perceived mission. "Courtier" does none of these.
>
>Secondly, I wish to note that a proliferation of peerage orders will diminish
>the stature of all of the orders, but most especially for the newest of the
>orders. The Pelican was largely saved this by its genesis as a peerage awarded
>by the ancient electors for "society wide service". This sort of boost will
>not be available to a new peerage which is created at the kingdom level.
>
>The poster then listed: archery, fencing, equestrian activities, lure
>coursing, and possibly falconry as activities which would be recognized
>by this order. They then note the effort and resulting mastery of these
>art forms. (Incidentally, they failed to mention axe throwing, musketry
>and seige engines.) They then make the point that people should be able
>to become peers through these activiites.
>
>I agree that anyone who makes contributions in recreating the middle ages
>and renaisance should be able to receive eleveation to the peerage regardless
>of what the specific actvity they exemplify is. The question is how to best
>accomplish this.
>
>>> But what order would suit these noble activities? The Laurel?
>>>These activities do not really fit in as an art or a science, and their
>>>practice certainly does not fall under A+S Criteria. They require
>>>authorization to participate and Marshal-type supervision to practice.
>
>This is not true at all. Which of the extant orders they fit into depends
>upon what they are specificically doing. We will assume for this analysis
>that the chivalry were open to non-rattan combat forms. First of all,
>significant effort in organizing activities of any sort are already recognized
>by the Order of the Pelican. This was noted by the original author.
>Consequently, I will restrict my analysis to the Chivlary v. the Laurel for
>eachof these activities.
> Chivalry Laurel
>==============================================================================
>archery Marksmanship Research into technique
>fencing Puissance Research & teaching
>equestrian Jousting, etc. Dressage & Training
etc.
>lure coursing <does not apply> Dog Trainging &
Research
>falconry <does not apply> Bird Training
>axe throwing <questionable> <questionable>
>musketry Marksmanship, etc. Research, etc.
>seige engines. Deployment & Marksm. Research & Construction
>
>Why not the Chivalry for lure coursing or falconry? Because, here the dog
>and the bird are the ones which attain puissance, not the owner or trainer.
>We should not be giving people peerages simply for having fast dogs or birds.
>We can give people peerages for doing significant research into medieval and
>rennaisance activities involving dogs and birds and recreating and teaching
>these things. That sounds like a Laurel to me. The reason that I mark axe
>throwing as in general questionable is that I do not know of a real application
>of axe throwing (outside of fantasy role playing games) as a significant
>martial form. Lacking such evidence, I can not see how it should ever be
>eligible for the chivalry. Further, lacking evidence of real medieval
>technique, I do not see how it should be part of the order of the Laurel. This
>does leave open the Pelican for those who teach others how to engage in this
>sport.
>
>Basically, the same activities apply for equestrian activities as apply to
>dogs and birds, except that the human component is much more in evidence at
>the time of actual performance (I assume that we are not talking about circus
>horses tha do tricks to commands), and equestrain activities can exhibit an
>obvious martial aspect.
>
>>> It seems to us that there is a gap between knighthood and the
>>>Laurelate. between the practice of war and the arts and sciences, and
>>>in this gap is where we feel these noble and courtly activities fit.
>
>Notice that seige engines can also be viewed in this way, but what of it?
>The design and construction of seige engines is rather obviously something
>worthy of a Laurel. A certain level of performance in operating (and
>especially commanding) a seige engine seems pretty military to me.
>
>>> In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the nobles serving at court
>>>would practice at activities for recreation and to keep their minds and
>>>bodies sharp. They would go hunting-ussually on horseback and using
>>>hounds or falcons. They would course the hounds for enjoyment.
>>>They would shoot Bow and arrow, <etc.>
>
>They also danced, wrote poetry, etc. Pastimes in and of themselves are
>things when they exhibit a degree of artisitic perfection and especially
>when they exhibit research and teaching are what we give Laurels for.
>The order of the Laruel is not simply an order for tradesmen and their arts.
>
>>>to us, to exist between the peerages. It could be given to those
>>>gentles that have shown a mastery in any of these courtly activities:
>>>archery, fencing, equestrian, hound coursing, falconry.
>
>Here is precisely one of the reasons that I have problems with this specific
>proposal. It seems to be a specific "catch-all" proposal which has delineated
>a shopping list of activities which it wishes to cover. It has on the other
>hand, omitted musketry, axe-throwing, seige engines, etc. Even more so, it
>has omitted a number of the classical "courtly" activities such as playing
>chess and other games. (Again, research is an avenue to the Laurelate in
>these activities. But, what of the expert chess player? Should the expert
>chess player be a peer?)
>
>>> This would give these courtly activities a chance to shine on their
>>>own, instead of being a "secondary" activity under another Peerage.
>
>I fear that simply by the grab-bag nature of these activities that they would
>not "shine on their own". How does a 12th century bowman co-shine with late
>period recreational forms? Both archery and rapier have developed their own
>ranking systems in which individuals shine. Only a formal peerage is lacking.
>There is no need to create a hodgepodge order. There is only a need to
>provide a peerage for these people.
>
>COUNTER-PROPOSAL.
>
>I wish to posit that the whole peerage system could be vastly improved by
>reserving the title "Marquis" to all non-royal peers. Further, the crown
>would be authorized to eleveate someone to peerage estate through consultation
>with the extant peerage orders in the kingdom without admission into a specific
>order. Consequently, if the crown wished to elevate someone to peerage estate
>who was undoubtedly a peer, but whose activities did not clearly belong to any
>particular order, then the crown could simply elevate them to the estate of
>Marquis upon consultation with the extant peerage orders. (This is a fairly
>modest requirement as some kingdoms alreay are formally asking for a sponsor
>from all of the peerage orders for all elevations.)
>
>If later on there were a sufficient number of lure coursers in the kingdom,
>then they could form a guilde or possibly even an order. Yes, this would mean
>that there would be peers without orders. But, what of it? Orders are for
>collegiality. There is collegiality in the list field. There is collegiality
>in research. There is collegiality in service. But, where is the collegiality
>in "none of the above"?
>
>Finally, a new "non of the above" order might more easily turn into a little
>clique of "none of the aboves" who will recognize your "none of the above" if
>they like you or your particular "none of the above", but may not do so
>otherwise. Further, the initial creation of the order would simply be by
>royal fiat, which would significantly comprimise the status of the order in
>many kingdoms. On the other hand, having it a joint poling non-order would
>open it up for consideration by a lot more people which would cause the net
>to be cast wider (no need to worry whether the list in the proposal is
>complete or not) and would at the same time bind the status of these gentles
>with the status to those in the other orders.
>
> Your Humble Servant
> Solveig Throndardottir
> Amateur Scholar
>
>
>+---------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
>| Barbara Nostrand, Ph.D. | Solveig Throndardottir, CoM |
>| Dept. of Pure & Applied Mathematics | Amateur Scholar |
>| Washington State University | Medieval Japanese Research |
>| Pullman, Washington 99164-3113 | Carolingia Status Mentis Est |
>| (509) 335-5110 | |
>| nostrand@pi.math.wsu.edu | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu |
>+---------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
>
>
>
-----------------------------
James and Nancy Gilly
katiemorag@worldnet.att.net
Dogs have Masters. Cats have staff.
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Submissions: atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
Admin. requests: majordomo@atlantia.sca.org